2014v1i10 31152 by Editor IJAERD

S cientific Journal of Impact Factor (S JIF) : 3.134

ISSN (Print) : 2348-6406 ISSN (Online): 2348-4470

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development

Comparative Study of Physical Properties of Different types of Bricks Used in Construction Asst. Prof.Anand Mehta1 , Mehul Patel2 , Dharmesh Sharma 3 1

Deptartment of Civil Engineering, BMCET, anandmehta@vt.edu Department of Civil Engineering, BMCET, drmehul_r_patel@yahoo.co.in 3 Department of Civil Engineering, BMCET, dharmesh.sharma9@gmail.com 2

Abstract - In this study, an effort has been made to compare mainly three different types of bricks available in the market. Four physical test are performed on the bricks: compressive strength test, water absorption test and thermal conductivity test. All the three bricks have different dry density. From the dry density, dead load from a wall made of these three bricks are compared. End moments on supporting beam are also compared. Moreover, cost comparison is made for constructing a wall made of these different bricks. Different results and properties are discussed and compared in the discussion section. Other characteristics from visual inspections are also discussed. Keywords:

compressive

strength,

dry

density,

water

absorption,

thermal

conductivity.

I. INTRODUCTION Presently, many different types of bricks are being used for building walls.All the bricks vary in their properties and price. The widely used materials for building walls are burnt clay brick, fly ash brick (FA B) and autoclave aerated concrete (AAC) blocks. It is necessary to find the most suitable brick for the construction purpose. 1.1. Burnt Clay brick Clay is one of the most abundant natural mineral materials on earth. For brick manufacturing, clay must possess some specific properties and characteristics . It has been established that the use of clay bricks provide a superior and comfo rtable physical liv ing environment than the use of other materials as far as residential construction is concerned. Despite all in itiatives to introduce alternative walling materials like co mpressed earth block, concrete/stone Crete block and fly-ash brick, it is envisaged that burnt clay bricks would still occupy the dominant position. Fig 1 shows the approximate co mposition of a burnt clay brick with the proportion of the raw materials.

60% Silica

62% Fly Ash

25 % Alumina

23% Sand

7% Lime

10% Lime

6.4% Iron Oxide

5% Gypsum

1.6% Magnesia

Figure 1. Composition of burnt clay bricks

Figure 2. Shows composition of FAB

1.2. Fl y Ash Brick Bureau of Indian standards has issued code IS: 12894-2002 for ash brick.Pu lverized fuel ash commonly known as fly ash is a useful by-product from thermal power stations using pulverized coal as fuel and has considerable pozzolonic activity. This national resource has been gainfully utilized for manufacture of FA Bas a supplement to common burnt clay buildings bricks leading to conservation of natural resources and improvement in environment quality .Fig 2 shows the composition of a FA B with the proportion of the raw materials. 1.3. AACBlocks 70 %Fly ash 15% Lime 10% Cement

International Journal of Advance Engineer ing and Research Development (IJAERD) Volume 1,Issue 10, October -2014, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470 , print-ISSN:2348-6406 Figure 3. Composition of an AAC Block AAC is a steam-cured mix of sand or pulverized fuel ash (PFA), cement, lime, and an aeration agent. The high -pressure steam-curing in autoclaves achieves a physically and chemically stable product with density being one fifth of normal concrete. . Fig 3 shows the composition of an AAC block with the proportion of the raw materials. AAC comprises myriads of tiny non-connecting air bubbles which g ive AAC its incredib ly diverse qualities and make it such a terrific insulator. It offers a unique comb ination of strength, low weight, thermal insulation, sound absorption, unsurpassed fire resistance and unprecedented build ability. AAC is a natural and non -toxic construction material, saves energy, and is friendly to your environment

A. B. C. D. E. F.

II. SCOPE OF THE WORK The scope of work includes four tests on the three bricks and cost comparison as mentioned below: Determination of co mpressive strength (as per IS:3495:part-1:1992) Determination of water absorption (as per IS:3495:part-2:1992) Calculate dry density Determination of thermal conductivity Co mparison of end reactions of supporting beam due to dead load of wall Cost comparison

III. MET HODOLOGY 3.1. Compressive strength The test was performedas per the method mentioned in IS:3495:Part-2:1992. 6 specimens of each type of brick were used. The final results were obtainedby taking the average value of the 6 results. 3.2. Water Abs orpti on test The test was performed as per the method mentioned in IS 3495 part 2 1992. 6 specimens of each type of brick were used. The final results were obtained by taking the average value of the 6 results. 3.3. Dry Density test Dry density was measured by taking the ratio of dry weight and volume of the bricks. Six samp les were weighed and the average of six samples was taken as dry density. 3.4. Thermal Conducti vity Tests on thermal conductivity were not performed. The results fro m published papers were taken d irect ly for the comparison. 3.5. Fire resistance Tests on fire resistance were not performed. The results fro m published papers were taken d irectly for the co mparison. 3.6. Sound insulati on Tests on sound insulation were not performed. The results from published papers were taken direct ly for the co mparison. 3.7. Dead load For dead load comparison a wall 6 m in length, 3 m in height and 0.2m thick is considered. The supporting beam is considered to be a fixed end beam. The total UDL, and end reactions because of the different bricks are discussed in the results section. 3.8. Cost comparison The average prices per brick in local market in Surat for each type of bricks are ₹6.5(9x19x9cm), ₹4.5(9x19x9cm) and ₹171(65x24x20cm)for burnt clay brick, FAB and AAC respectively. The cost of mortaris taken as 160₹/ m2 . The results are discussed in the results section. The cost of one brick includes the transportation charges and additional taxes. The mo rtar thickness is considered as 10 mm. IV. TES T RES ULTS 4.1. Compressive strength Results of the test on water absorption of different bricks are mentioned in figure-4:

International Journal of Advance Engineer ing and Research Development (IJAERD) Volume 1,Issue 10, October -2014, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470 , print-ISSN:2348-6406

Burnt Clay Brick

FAB

AAC Block

Burnt Clay Brick

FAB

AAC Block

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Water Absorbtion in %

Compressive Strength in N/mm 2

4.5 3.5 3

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

3 4 Brick Samples

Figure 4. Compressive strength of bricks

3 4 Brick Samples

Figure 5.Results of water absorption test

4.2. Water Abs orpti on test Results of the test on water absorption of different bricks are mentioned in figure-5:

Dry Density in Kg/m3

4.3. Dry Density test Results of the test on dry density of different bricks are mentioned in figure-6:

Burnt Clay Brick

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1

FAB

3 4 Brick Samples

AAC Block

Figure 6.Result of dry density test V. Discussion 5.1. Compressive strength Fro m the data analysis it is obtained that AAC blocks has lowest compressive strength as its 80%of volu me is made of air. Whereas burnt clay has high compressive strength as it is highly dense. The highest compressive strength was seen in fly ash bricks as it contains 62% by weight of fly ash materials.

International Journal of Advance Engineer ing and Research Development (IJAERD) Volume 1,Issue 10, October -2014, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470 , print-ISSN:2348-6406

Burnt clay brick

FAB

AAC block

Burnt clay brick

FAB

AAC block

4 Water absorption in %

Compressive strength N/mm 2

4.5 3.5 3

2.5 2

1.5 1

40 30

20 10

0.5 0

Bricks

Figure 7. Comparison of compressive strength

Figure 8. Comparison of Water Absorption

5.2. Water abs orpti on AAC blocks were found to have highest water absorption as it is highly porous. Whereas fly ash bricks and burnt clay bricks had lo w water absorption as they are highly dense and least porous. 5.3. Dry Density Density of burnt brick is highest as it is made of 60% by weight of silica which is heavier than fly ash particles. So Fly ash bricks have lower density then burnt clay bricks as it contains 62% by weight of fly ash and AAC blocks has lowest density as they constitute 80% of air by volu me and also 70% by weight of fly ash. 5.4. Thermal Conducti vity As the bulk density of burnt clay bricks is highest, it has the highest thermal conductivity and less for fly as brick as the y are less dense and least for A.A.C blocks as they are least dense.

2000

Burnt clay brick

FAB

AAC block

Burnt clay brick

1.4

FAB

AAC block

Thermal Conductivity

Dry density in Kg/m3

1.2 1500

1000

500

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0 Bricks

Bricks

Figure 9. Comparison of Dry Density

Figure 10. Comparison of Thermal Conductivity

5.5. Fire resistance 3500

Burnt clay brick

FAB

AAC block

Fire Resistance

3000 2500

2000 1500 1000 500 0 Bricks

International Journal of Advance Engineer ing and Research Development (IJAERD) Volume 1,Issue 10, October -2014, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470 , print-ISSN:2348-6406 Figure 11. Comparison of Fire Resistance Table 1. Bending moments in beam supporting wall constructed from different bricks Wall material

Burnt clay bricks FAB AAC blocks

Bending Moment at ends KN-m 48.24

Bending Moment at centre KN-m 24.12

40.35 14.877

20.17 7.43

5.6. Dead load Fro m the volume of the wall and the dry density of the bricks, UDL on the supporting beam turns out to be 10.72 KN/ m, 8.97 KN/ m and 3.31 KN/ m for the burnt clay bricks, FAB and AAC blocks respectively. The bending moments at ends and at the centre of the beam is mentioned in table-1: 5.7. Costcomparison The cost comparison of different bricks fo r constructing a wall of 6 m length, 3 m height and 0.2 m thickness is shown in table-2. Table 2. Cost comparison for 6x3x0.2 m wall Type of brick Size No of Cost HxLxt bricks Of reqd. pl aster cm â&#x201A;š Burnt Clay Brick 9x19x9 1858 2880

Total Cost â&#x201A;š 13550

FAB

9x19x9

1858

2880

11241

AACBlocks

65x24x20

112

19152

5.8. Other Characteristics Apart fro m the tests, other characteristics of the different bricks are mentioned in table-3. Table 3 other characteristics of different bricks CharactBurnt FAB AAC bl ock eristic Clay brick Shape Unifo rm Rough 5 times more in edge Solidity Excellent Unifo r Optimu m m ProductLess Same as More ivity Co mpared Burnt Co mpared In To AAC clay To others Construc tion Plaster Excellent Bad Good Fin ish quality VI. CONCLUS ION Fro m the cost comparison, it is observed that the cost of constructing a wall with Fly ash brick is the least, whereas for autoclaved aerated blocks it is the highest. But at the same time, AAC blocks have smooth finish which does not require plaster. So the cost of plaster can be saved in case of AAC blocks. AAC blocks gives higher rate productivity as they are the lightest. Because of its light nature, shifting of material on site becomes easier. Ano ther advantage of a

International Journal of Advance Engineer ing and Research Development (IJAERD) Volume 1,Issue 10, October -2014, e-ISSN: 2348 - 4470 , print-ISSN:2348-6406 wall constructed with AAC blocks is the reduced dead load on the supporting beam. Because of the reduced dead load, the RCC design becomes lighter. VII. REFERENCES [1] IS-3495: Part-1:1992, ―Methods Of Tests Of Burnt Clay Building Bricks Part 1 Determination Of Co mpressive Strength‖. [2] IS-3495: Part-2:1992, ―Methods Of Tests Of Burnt Clay Build ing: Determination Of Water Absorption Bricks‖. [3] IS-1077:1992, ‖ Co mmon Burnt Clay Build ing Bricks – Specification‖. [4] IS-2185: Part 3:1984, ―Specificat ion For Concrete Masonry Units: Autoclaved Cellu lar (Aerated) Concrete Blocks‖. [5] IS 13757: 1993, ― Burnt Clay Fly Ash Building Bricks — Specification‖. [6] O. Koronthalyova, P. Mat iasovsky, ―Pore St ructure And Thermal Conductivity Of Burnt Clay Bricks‖, Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of Sciences.